Remember, in your R-L23* examples one group was only of 13 people and the other of 17 people. 10 of the 13 people in that group were all from Turkey so that wasn't very representative.

13 people with 10 STRs to represent all of SW Asia???

That wasn’t L23*, but M269*, and M269* is very scarce, in fact the sample size of Myres et al(2010) was 10355, out of those 2043 were R1b-M269+, out of those only 80 were R1b-M269(xL23). If you find a bigger sample size than that from randomly collected data, you are more than welcome to bring it forward as new data.

...Of course it seems right that the Irish “resampled” variance is higher than it was on the Balaresque et al. sample, in fact, is not a question whether it should be higher or lower, it is a question whether it is more accurate or not? My answer: yes it is by far more accurate as they actually took the time to resample 10000 random sets.

We have been over this multiple times before, there wasn’t any inconsistency in the Busby et al process, well there was if you consider that what Balaresque did was also inconsistent. That they only sampled 75 haplotypes at random out of a database of 800+ Irish haplotypes, is fine. They did this process 10000 times, and took the average observed variance in the 10000 samples. If you sample 75 random haplotypes in dataset that are of 100 people, you will more often than not, get absolutely no variance, hence why the random sampling was only applied to populations that had too many haplotypes(i.e. The Irish)

I agree that consistency is an element of accuracy which is why I don't think data by region should be treated different by region. There is a need for scientific design for the sampling process, one that can be cross-sectionally checked.

I agree that accuracy is needed. If a result can't be repeated with consistency then we know at least some of the results are inaccurate. Accuracy also requires precision, at least some. There is little precision in 10 STRs. I can start to get consistent, correlated (with phylogenetic tree) variance results when using over 25 STRs and over 25 haplotypes.

I think we could go back and forth on variance so let's do that over on the STR wars thread if you want to. People reading this thread probably have enough info to decide how to consider the data. So out of courtesy for others..

As for variance, I think it should go in here, because the data of the variance of R1b-M269(xL23) is vital to the origin of R-L23. As for the precision of 10 STRs, I can tell you, that if those were 10 STRs with slow mutation rates, then the precision would likely be far higher than a set of 36 STRs, if and only if, the TMRCA of the set being analyzed is greater than 2000 ybp.

R1 is likely Central Aisian. R1b-M343 is probably less than 18k ybp and by the time we get to R1b-M269, folks like FTDNA's Mike Hammers are saying 4-8K ybp. If we find M269xL23 in SW Asia and we see V88 splitting off into Africa, then we are setting the logical base for an east to west expansion/migration at some time. This is where the missing links appear (or don't appear) - from SW Asia to Western Europe.

Well aDNA now sets the earliest date of R1b-M269 in Europe to 4500 ybp, as for R1b-M269xL23, it is found in Europe too. Per Myres et al(2010) R1b-M269(xL23) is found as follows:

Germany (n=274) 1.09% (2.13% of all R1b-M269+ in sample)

Switzerland (n=175) 1.14% (2.17% of all R1b-M269+ in sample)

Slovenia (n=102) 0.98% (5.55% of all R1b-M269+ in sample)

Poland (n=202) 0.495% (4% of all R1b-M269+ in sample)

Hungary (n=113) 0.88% (4.35% of all R1b-M269+ in sample)

Russia (n=1037) 0.289% (6% of all R1b-M269+ in sample)

Ukraine (n=504) 0.198% (3.45% of all R1b-M269+ in sample)

Bashkirs (n=586) 1.706% (5.24% of all R1b-M269+ in sample)

Bosnia (n=78) 1.282% (100% of all R1b-M269+ in sample)

Serbia (n=113) 4.42% (45.45% of all R1b-M269+ in sample)

Herzegovina (n=141) 1.418% (50% of all R1b-M269+ in sample)

Macedonia (n=79) 5.063% (100% of all R1b-M269+ in sample)

Kosovo(n=114) 7.89% (37.5% of all R1b-M269+ in sample)

Romania(n=330) 2.727% (22.5% of all R1b-M269+ in sample)

Italy (n=282) 1.063% (2.86% of all R1b-M269+ in sample)

Greece (n=185) 1.081% (8.33% of all R1b-M269+ in sample)

Crete(n=193) 2.072% (12.12% of all R1b-M269+ in sample)

Northeast Caucasus* (n=374) 0.535% (3.45% of all R1b-M269+ in sample)

*R1b-M269(xL23) is only found in Lezgis (n=31) with a frequency of 3.225% (20% of all R1b-M269+ in sample) , and Tabasarans (n=43) with a frequency of 2.325% (5.88% of all R1b-M269+ in sample) .

Northwest Caucasus (n=695) 0% (0% of all R1b-M269+ in sample)

South Caucasus (n=278) 0% (0% of all R1b-M269+ in sample)

Central Asia-Pakistan and Kazakhstan (n=199) 0% (0% of all R1b-M269+ in sample)

Jordan (n=222) 0.45% (12.5% of all R1b-M269+ in sample)

Iran (n=150) 2.667% (33.33% of all R1b-M269+ in sample)

Turkey (n=611) 1.963% (13.19% of all R1b-M269+ in sample)

Here is the variance calculation for R1b-M269(xL23) from Myres et al(2010), unfortunately they did not sample the 10 STRs for many of the Balkan populations which are relatively rich in R1b-M269(xL23). (A total of 21 haplotypes of R1b-M269(xL23) weren’t tested for the 10 STRs 1 from Bosnia, 5 from Serbia, 2 from Herzegovina, 4 from Macedonia, 9 from Kosovo).

*The authors did include all the German haplotypes, however I did not include 1 in my calculations due to the fact that it was missing the value for DYS19.

European R1b-M269(xL23) haplotypes that were not included in sample are:

Kosovo-9Serbia-5Macedonia-4Russia-3Herzegovina-2Bosnia-1Ukraine-1

The West Asian R1b-M269(xL23) 10 STRs sample consist of:

Turkey-10Iran-1Tasabaran-1Bashkirs-1

West Asian R1b-M269(xL23) haplotypes that were not included in sample are:

Jordan-1Iran-3Turkey-2Lezgis-2Bashkirs-9

Anyhow the variance of R1b-M269(xL23) using 10 STRs is as follows:

Europe (n=17) 0.2706

West Asia (n=13) 0.2385

It seems that R1b-M269(xL23) has more variance in Europe than in West Asia, at least for the Myres et al(2010) dataset.

Anyone's got any info about the variance of R1b-M269(xL23) in the Balkans. I wish Myres et al(2010) would have included the 21 Balkanic sequences that were left out, as to do a comparison of Balkans vs.West Asia. I have a feeling that the Western Balkans(i.e. Serbia, Albania, Kosovo, Bosnia) would have a high variance for R1b-M269(xL23).

Very interesting to see M269* as a proportion of all M269 on a region by region basis. It puts it in a different light. You could say its down to historic period movements fro Turkey etc but if so then why is so much of it M269*, far higher a proportion than in Turkey. Very interesting.

Is anybody in touch with the Romanian (by descent anyway) guy who used to post as Alexandromir on DNA-Forums? Kit #149471 at FTDNA. My only direct contact with him was via PM there, in January. He had plans (and funding) to do a substantial amount of "Carpathian" DNA sampling this summer, mainly in Romania, and maybe Hungary.

You may see if the Helpdesk at FtDNA will send him a contact info message and see if he will reply.

Remember, in your R-L23* examples one group was only of 13 people and the other of 17 people. 10 of the 13 people in that group were all from Turkey so that wasn't very representative.

13 people with 10 STRs to represent all of SW Asia???

That wasn’t L23*, but M269*, and M269* is very scarce, in fact the sample size of Myres et al(2010) was 10355, out of those 2043 were R1b-M269+, out of those only 80 were R1b-M269(xL23). If you find a bigger sample size than that from randomly collected data, you are more than welcome to bring it forward as new data.

I apologize for mis-writing it as L23*. The net is still 13 people with 10 STRs is not enough to even speculate much about on R-M269*.

As for variance, I think it should go in here, because the data of the variance of R1b-M269(xL23) is vital to the origin of R-L23. As for the precision of 10 STRs, I can tell you, that if those were 10 STRs with slow mutation rates, then the precision would likely be far higher than a set of 36 STRs, if and only if, the TMRCA of the set being analyzed is greater than 2000 ybp.

If those 10 STRs? If?

Those 36 STRs were actually run through an analysis by Marko Heinila with tens of thousands of haplotypes. What 10 STRs did you select and what is the analysis of their linear duration? Even according to Busby? We know the answer. They had slim picking in the first place. It's not their fault. It's just 10 STRs is not enough. I can show you runs where you take just 10 STRs, subtract one and the answer will be different than if you add one, or add a few odd haplotypes. Why do you think Busby and Barlaresque disagree? They looked at the data differently. There was not a enough depth in testing to show clarity.

It matters not if you have enough experiments (STRs.) You can use the 36 linear STRs or the 49 mixed speed ones. It makes little difference. I've showed you that. You pick. The 36 are generally the slower ones.

I don't defend either Barlaresque or Busby for their limited data analysis.

What are you saying? .... If we consider Barlaresque was inconsistent then we should consider that Busby's inconsistency was really consistent? You should run for office.

No, I'm not into politics, thank you. We have been over this multiple times before. Busby et al(2012) did a re-analysis of the data provided by Balaresque et al(2010) in one of their Supplementary files. Once more, even if what they did was inconsistent or erroneous, that was on the supplementary file and doesn't invalidate the results from the other dataset which are provided in the main study. Nonetheless I would say that Balaresque et al. is far more limited than Busby et al., because Balaresque didn’t even bother to sample the R1b-M269 subclades, and used only 9 STRs.

Those 36 STRs were actually run through an analysis by Marko Heinila with tens of thousands of haplotypes. What 10 STRs did you select and what is the analysis of their linear duration? Even according to Busby? We know the answer. They had slim picking in the first place. It's not their fault. It's just 10 STRs is not enough. I can show you runs where you take just 10 STRs, subtract one and the answer will be different than if you add one, or add a few odd haplotypes. Why do you think Busby and Barlaresque disagree? They looked at the data differently. There was not a enough depth in testing to show clarity.

It matters not if you have enough experiments (STRs.) You can use the 36 linear STRs or the 49 mixed speed ones. It makes little difference. I've showed you that. You pick. The 36 are generally the slower ones.

Look, I mentioned that it is not the number of STRs, but their relative mutation rates. I never said that those 10 STRs were slow or fast ones, they are a mixed set, and anyone who has read Myres et al. knows it. Look the 36 linear vs. 49 mixed STRs sets do make a difference, the only reason why you don’t see a difference when using 36 linear vs.49 mixed, is because many of the linear STRs have mutation rates that aren’t so linear. Here: Why don’t you do something, run the following set of 19 linear STRs:

Now there are 23 haplotypes typed for 37 STRs. Out of those 1-Italian has some uncertainty in the STR values, so I didn't included.

Now there are 15 with known European origin:

Italy-6Ukraine-4Belarus-2Poland-1France-1UK-1

There are 7 with known SW Asian origin:

Turkey-4Syria-1Armenia-1Kazakhstan-1

For what it is worth:

R1b-M269(xL23) using 37 STRs

Europe (n=15, var=0.3189)

SW Asia (n=7, var=0.2857)

This is in agreement with the data from Myres et al(2010) where

R1b-M269(xL23) using 10 STRs

Europe (n=17, var=0.2706)

SW Asia (n=13, var=0.2385)

One can argue that the sample sizes are rather small, but it is all we got now both from the hobbyist community and Academic studies. In both cases using 10, 37, or 67 STRs the paragroup R1b-M269(xL23) has consistently more variance in Europe than outside of it.

JeanL writes: “Out of those 1-Italian has some uncertainty in the STR values, so I didn't included”.

I have spoken a lot of the case of Mangino (actually the Tuscan Mancini from Monticiano in Siena province). I wrote many times also to Vincent Vizachero some years ago. He is put amongst the R-M269* because tested for this SNP by FTDNA, but his markers values are clearly close to the European R1b1* and he could be of an intermediate SNP between R1b1 and R1b1a2, not being M269 probably the last. I asked many times to test him again for M269 and more for a WTY I have contributed to pay. No answer. And the letters sent to him probably never arrived. Now his surname is also withhold. I think he is, amongst many others, one of the strongest proofs in favour of my Italian Refugium of R1b1* and subclades. I have always in mind to collect the YDNA from some relatives he has in Tuscany and test it elsewhere.

European variance of R-M269 is higher now because I made LoPiccolo put amongst them, after many letters and many attempts done by others to put him amongst the R-L23/L584+?I'd want you note that Italians belong to the cluster YCAII=17-23, which I presuppose derived from an R1b1 with YCAII=18-23 (Italy gets also the 18-22 values) and that the last Mutation Rate for YCAIIa is 0,000496 (MarkoH).

Of course you have put amongst the Europeans many Jews, and we should understand which is their origin. Anyway they belong to an unique cluster (and very recent) and should be counted for only 1. Then European variance would be higher and, if you put them amongst the Middle Easterner ones, it would be lower. Practically the most part of Europeans are Italians.

Look, I mentioned that it is not the number of STRs, but their relative mutation rates. I never said that those 10 STRs were slow or fast ones, they are a mixed set, and anyone who has read Myres et al. knows it. Look the 36 linear vs. 49 mixed STRs sets do make a difference, the only reason why you don’t see a difference when using 36 linear vs.49 mixed, is because many of the linear STRs have mutation rates that aren’t so linear. Here: Why don’t you do something, run the following set of 19 linear STRs:

Then compare the variance values of West Europe vs. SW Asia using only those 19 STRs, and then using the 49 mixed STRs.

I have to re-work the spreadsheet to do that. I'm out trying to collect more P312xL21 data right now. If I get a chance I'll try this, but I do want to see some justification on why these markers are better. I don't want to waste time.

It looks like your recommended STR list are just the very slow STRs. Before I started using Heinila's analysis I tried subsets of slow and medium markers like Tim Janzen used to do. I found the relationships between haplogroups erratic. The inconsistency proves that is not reliable, at least with limited haplotype samples.

You are also reducing the precision of your STR composite clock by using only slow STRs. For instance, DYS472 mutates on average only once every 2.5M years... that's milliions of years not thousands. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~geneticgenealogy/ratestuff.htmSince we are talking about thousands of years, not even tens of thousands, the unit of measure is many times largerr than the maximum time we want to measure. That's like trying to measure minutes by counting days on a calendar. I'm not a brilliant statistician, but you need a lot, a lot data to use a measurement like that usefully.

If you remove more STRs you are reducing the breadth of your experiment which reduces precision as well.

I guess you are saying that you disagree with Marko Heinila's analysis since those 36 "linear" STRs are ones that should work for at least 7000 years. You have some trust in academic studies. Is there a study that says we should use only slow markers? The one that I know of made the link of high allele markers (i.e. values like 30) with limited linear duration. Is there another study that says something different?

Of course you have put amongst the Europeans many Jews, and we should understand which is their origin. Anyway they belong to an unique cluster (and very recent) and should be counted for only 1. Then European variance would be higher and, if you put them amongst the Middle Easterner ones, it would be lower. Practically the most part of Europeans are Italians.

I think Maliclavelli has a good point here. This gets into selective sampling and I don't know the answers on how to do that correctly but this does impact the R-M269xL23 results. This is the same thing I'm saying about L51xL11. It appears L51xL11 is really a single clade that we might label the R-L51* 426=13 clade.

In terms of R-M269xL23 part of the extant (surviving) group of people who have DNA tested appears to be a single clade. Most are in the Jewish project so I don't know if they are related or not but that is a consideration.... we have very light and scattered data on M269xL23, similar to the situation with L51xL11, so I don't trust it.

That's why in replies 59 & 61 I used R-L23xL11 data. We do have quite a bit of long haplotypes of L23x-L11 and it does show differentiation by region and a significantly greater age than L11, which makes sense.

In the ht35 Project there are 28 haplotypes that are R1b-M269(xL23). ....One can argue that the sample sizes are rather small

Exactly! The sample sizes are too small and not representative. However, please note the counts of 67 STR haplotypes are well above the data we have on L51* or M269*.

Importantly, the M269* sample is dominated by quite probably a single clade with a religious affiliation. Some feel this an endogenous group. Some say it is from the Rhine Valley. It very well could be. Some say it is from the Near East, which is the history of the religion. It very well could be.

I don't think you can tell much from looking at R-M269xL23. We need a much more representative sample, which may NOT be available ever since many of the lineages may be extinct.

In terms of R-M269xL23 part of the extant (surviving) group of people who have DNA tested appears to be a single clade. Most are in the Jewish project so I don't know if they are related or not but that is a consideration.... we have very light and scattered data on M269xL23, similar to the situation with L51xL11, so I don't trust it.

Well Mike, you are arguing that my data is very small yet you are using n=2 for West Europe in your calculations from the Jewish sample. But even in your own data, you still get again that R1b-M269(xL23) has more variance in Europe than in SW Asia. So you can argue that the data is small, and what not. But seeing how in both cases Myres et al(2010), and the ht35 project R1b-M269(xL23) haplotypes, Europe is consistently coming out older than SW Asia, regardless if 10, 37 or 67 STRs are used, leads me to believe that the a significant chance that R1b-M269(xL23) might indeed have more variance inside of Europe.

In terms of R-M269xL23 part of the extant (surviving) group of people who have DNA tested appears to be a single clade. Most are in the Jewish project so I don't know if they are related or not but that is a consideration.... we have very light and scattered data on M269xL23, similar to the situation with L51xL11, so I don't trust it.......

Well Mike, you are arguing that my data is very small yet you are using n=2 for West Europe in your calculations from the Jewish sample. But even in your own data, you still get again that R1b-M269(xL23) has more variance in Europe than in SW Asia. So you can argue that the data is small, and what not. But seeing how in both cases Myres et al(2010), and the ht35 project R1b-M269(xL23) haplotypes, Europe is consistently coming out older than SW Asia, regardless if 10, 37 or 67 STRs are used, leads me to believe that the a significant chance that R1b-M269(xL23) might indeed have more variance inside of Europe. ...

Thank you. You are helping me learn I need to be extremely articulate and cautious in repeating specific labels over and over again.Perhaps I need to use more bold emphasis markings and colors as well.

In the ht35 Project there are 28 haplotypes that are R1b-M269(xL23). ....One can argue that the sample sizes are rather small

Exactly! The sample sizes are too small and not representative. However, please note the counts of 67 STR haplotypes are well above the data we have on L51* or M269*.....I don't think you can tell much from looking at R-M269xL23. We need a much more representative sample, which may NOT be available ever since many of the lineages may be extinct. ...

Please note the counts of 67 STR haplotypes are well above the data we have on L51* or M269*.

The emboldened "counts of 67 STR haplotypes" was a direct reference to the L23xL11 data where there are many more long haplotypes available.

The emboldened "Exactly! The sample sizes are too small" was a direct reference to the M269xL23 data that you injected into the conversation. The same applies to the small data set I showed which I only did that to re-emphasize the data sets are too small for M269xL23 and to show that a single clade may be messing that up.

To summarize and be absolutely clear, you said, "Europe is consistently coming out older than SW Asia." My direct response is "The sample sizes are too small and not representative." Calculating M269xL23 variance is fairly useless in this analysis.

... Here is a different comparison for R1b-M269(xL23):R1b-M269(xL23) 37 STRs from ht35

Italy (n=6, var=0.3378)

Turkey (n=4, var=0.2568)

Maliclavelli, I think groups of six and four are too small for valid variance calculations...

but I want you to know there are reasons that I think that Italy is a definite consideration as a key role in M343 and/or its descendants expansions/migrations. I don't know the answers but I am open to your theory. There are some strange haplotypes out there.

The emboldened "Exactly! The sample sizes are too small" was a direct reference to the M269xL23 data that you injected into the conversation. The same applies to the small data set I showed which I only did that to re-emphasize the data sets are too small for M269xL23 and to show that a single clade may be messing that up.

You can put it any color you want, although I would say I prefer blue over red as it doesn’t burn my eyes. But the fact is, that if as you said there was a single clade that would be messing things up, then how come in two different datasets (Myres et al(2010) and the ht35 project) R1b-M269(xL23) keeps coming out older in Europe than in Western Asia, even when only Italy(n=6) vs. Turkey(n=4) is compared for the ht35 project, or Western Europe(n=5) vs. Turkey(n=10) for the Myres et al(2010) dataset. So I removed 12 clades from the R1b-M269(xL23) European sample of Myres et al(2010), and only left the 5 Western European ones, and removed 3 clades from the West Asian sample and only left Turkey, yet it had no effect in the relative variance, with Europe still coming out with a higher variance then Turkey. What are the chances that the three different analyses are the results of a fluke? Now, if you now want to regard the variance calculation of R1b-M269(xL23) as useless because it yields somewhat unexpected results, please list the real reason, don’t just say that it is because of the small sample size. Because, if you think those are small sample sizes(Given that the sample sizes used for R1b-M269(xL23) aren't small if one considers how rare this paragroup is.), then I have to say you are applying a clearly biased double standard here sir:

Your sample size for R1b-M153 for the 49 mixed non-multicopy STR is 7. While you mentioned that the M153 data is limited, that didn’t stop you from using it, so now you claim that the data I used from the ht 35 project which was Europe(n=15) and SW Asia(n=7) for 37 STR is useless. If that isn't a double standard, then I don't know what a double standard is.

Moreover, correct me if I'm wrong, but I am feeling certain hostility from you with regards to the analyses I have done. I mentioned it before, I sincerely did not expect these results, and I am more than open to analyze new data.

Maliclavelli, I think groups of six and four are too small for valid variance calculations...

but I want you to know there are reasons that I think that Italy is a definite consideration as a key role in M343 and/or its descendants expansions/migrations. I don't know the answers but I am open to your theory. There are some strange haplotypes out there.

First of all, I'm not Maliclavelli, so I'm not sure why you have me confused, or are addressing him instead of me. As for analyses done using only Italy and Turkey, it was to test whether your hypothesis that excluding 1 haplotype when working with small datasets had a significant effect. It turns out, that only using the data from Italy vs. Turkey from the ht35 project, and Italy-Switzerland vs.Turkey from Myres et al(2010) did not have a significant effect, and still produced the same results where European samples have a greater variance than nonEuropean ones.

Maliclavelli, I think groups of six and four are too small for valid variance calculations...

First of all, I'm not Maliclavelli, so I'm not sure why you have me confused...

I don't have you confused. Maliclavelli also posts here and I was addressing him, quite specifically. I don't know how I could have been clearer? It is okay to address someone else besides yourself? Perhaps we have new moderation rules.

I don't have you confused. Maliclavelli also posts here and I was addressing him, quite specifically. I don't know how I could have been clearer? It is okay to address someone else besides yourself? Perhaps we have new moderation rules.

Well, you were quoting me, so I thought you were addressing me, if that wasn’t the case, I apologize for misinterpreting you.

First of all I want to thank Mike for what he has said. To Jean Lohizun I’d say that in some previous posts Mike reproached me because it seemed that you and me were the same and I, by what he said, was interpreting your thinking. The fact was that I let you do your analyses, with which I largely agreed, and you were clever than me in these analyses. Of course what Mike says merits to be taken in consideration: this analysis, even though favourable to me, is certainly partial. Let us expect more data and we’ll see better.But I’d want to say that in my analyses I took in consideration other data, and, not having at my disposal FTDNA or other, I used some relatives of mine I tested and above all the SMGF data beside YHRD.I think to have been always open to other solutions rather than the Italian Refugium: if I found my relative Fabrizio Federighi (tested by SMGF) a R-M269* with DYS462=12 who matched Filandro, a Portuguese (Rodrigues) and others overall in the world, I let always open the possibility that they could be of other origin than Italian one. Also the R-M269 with YCAII=17-23 matches a Lebanese (Jlelaty) I put on ySearch. Then the question is still open for me. I hope that my analyses are taken as scientific ones, and not inspired by my nationality.

Now, if you now want to regard the variance calculation of R1b-M269(xL23) as useless because it yields somewhat unexpected results, please list the real reason, don’t just say that it is because of the small sample size.

Because, if you think those are small sample sizes(Given that the sample sizes used for R1b-M269(xL23) aren't small if one considers how rare this paragroup is.), ....

A haplotype sample of 15 may be approaching usefulness but I still don't think a sample of 7 means much. I just say that from experience in finding consistent (versus inconsistent) relative positioning between haplogroups. I'd like to see minimum size groups of 50, but as you know the data is what it is.

then I have to say you are applying a clearly biased double standard here sir:... Your sample size for R1b-M153 for the 49 mixed non-multicopy STR is 7. While you mentioned that the M153 data is limited....

The M153 sample may be representative, I don't know, but I agree that a sample size of 7 is too small. In the message you cite I had a break in the paragraphs and clearly attached the caveat that you noticed "My M153 data is very limited." I guess I need to put in longer caveats or embolden them in all cases. To be clear, I think the count of 7 M153 long haplotypes is way too small to be conclusive in telling much about the M153 among the Basques. I built no hypothesis upon that in that discussion. It was just informational, because I typically get asked about M153 when I cite Z196. There is no double standard in that.

......

I appreciate your willingness to dig in to the data. There is enlightment in that. Not necessarily agreement, though. There is nothing wrong with that so keep digging.

This has all got me feeling that M269* is a bit of a hopeless case for now but L23* is very interesting. I do wonder if it has something to do with the Anatolian branch of IE and its ancestors elsewhere (if the Kurgan model is correct). There have been links suggested for the Hittites with both the Caucuses and the Balkans. Either way it would seem to be tempting to link it with some sort of early fission of IE into the general area and the Anatolian branch. Its a shame (again following the Kurgan model) that the origin of the Hittites is not not clearer because that would perhaps provided a clue as to where M269* was located. If L23 is some sort of echo of an external intrusion of Anatolian speakers as an early off-shoot of IE then that would point to M269* being located either in the area around the Caucuses or perhaps somewhere like the western shore of the Black Sea. Could the early date of L23 in and around Anatolia be some sort of echo of the early split off of Anatolian as it entered the area from elsewhere?

The PIE dialect that evolved into Proto-Anatolian is generally considered to have entered Anatolia from the west. Troy I (3000–2600 BC) seems to have been founded by IE people (anthropomorphic stele), who later spoke Luwian. A Luwian seal was found at the Troy VII level.